He noted the increase in domestic oil production, spurred by a rise in hydraulic fracturing:

In the last year alone, we cut oil imports by 1 million barrels a day, more than any administration in recent history. And today the United States of America is less dependent on foreign oil than at any time in the last two decades.

He promised a “better path” that included development of wind, solar and biofuels, but he didn’t offer any specifics about how any of those sources might become economically viable or might make a significant contribution to meeting energy demand. He also touched on natural gas and “a hundred-year supply” that’s “right beneath our feet.” He added:

If you choose this path, we can cut our oil imports in half by 2020 and support more than 600,000 new jobs in natural gas alone.

Neither addresses the fundamental changes occurring in the global oil market, or the impact that rising demand and declining supply is likely to have on the world economy. Cutting our imports in half by 2020? Will that be enough of a decline? Will it happen quickly enough? Probably not.

. . . There’s still disagreement over the factors governing the growth of production from the new fields. Among those factors: the direction of global supply and demand, how price will help or hinder exploration, whether new regulation will impede development, and how long it will take to build the infrastructure needed to get more oil to market.

Mr. Hofmeister said he believes forecasts also understate the “decline” rate of shale fields. The hydrocarbons tend to flow robustly in the first months of drilling, then decline before plateauing at lower levels.

To sustain growth, companies will need to drill many wells at a rate “beyond the capacity of the industry as currently defined,” he says. “Those who ballyhoo oil shale and say that this will take care of us—no, it won’t.”

Meanwhile, the politicians dance around the issues, making fleeting references to energy independence or declining imports in the distant future as if it’s addressing the problem. Both parties are paralyzed on energy issues by the views of their fringe factions. Consider the issue of domestic natural production. While Obama may tout potential job growth, Daniel Dicker, writing for The Street, noted that the “radical wings of each party have made advocating natural gas use impossible.” On the Democrats’ side, it’s environmentalists’ opposition to fracking. On the Republican side, it’s an opposition to federal spending of any kind and a aversion to “picking winners.”